World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The trauma happened. Gaslighting them into thinking it didn't can't make them better. Your brain still processes shit whether you're consciously aware of it or not.
There is no possible healthy path forward that doesn't involve knowing reality. "Not wanting to know" isn't possible without knowing what you supposedly don't want to know. Not telling them is not, under any circumstances, forgivable.
They have to know, and they have to have to get therapy. There's no other path to recovery.
Whether to seek therapy or even go on a path to recovery is their choice to make, are you advocating to force people onto a path of recovery‽
It's true your brain is always processing things, but it's not guaranteed that it'll process it into trauma PTSD or another mental health issue. It's perfectly capable of processing it's way out of major issues. There are plenty of people who have gone through traumatic things both aware and unaware in which they suffered no I'll effect. It happens. That bit of the article I quoted is of one such person.
Am I advocating for forcing adults into therapy? Obviously barring court ordered therapy, no. But children are not capable of making that decision and it is not theoretically possible that an adult who doesn't want to inform them is acting in their interest. Not getting a child rape victim therapy is child abuse.
Informed consent to not know is not even theoretically within the realm of possibility. There's a reason informed consent is always the requirement for all treatment. It's because no one else can possibly be justified in making the decision.
The patient must be informed on reality in order to be capable of choosing a path forward. They cannot possibly make decisions while being lied to.
I don't think you read the second half of my original comment
I did. Your solution is not acceptable. It is not theoretically possible to give informed consent not to be told, because you unconditionally have to have the details to be capable of making the decision.
It's pretty simple really
Detective: "Excuse me, I'm Detective so-so, recently we've come into some information that indicates something traumatic may have occurred in your past, are you ready to hear the details or would you like some time to prepare?"
Person: "WHAT‽ I'm gonna need some time to prepare, I'll contact you when I'm ready"
This'll give those vulnerable time to prepare for a shit storm and those who feel they've already adjusted and would rather not hear about it the opportunity to decline
Your attitude is very much "You need to hear about it no matter what or how well adjusted you are. Oh, your brain was able to process the incident without causing any I'll effect? WELL TOO BAD YOU NEED TO HEAR IT"
Again, not every traumatic incident results in a mental ill effect like PTSD or depression. Some people have more resilient mental stability than others. What of them? What if the disclosure itself is just too much and now they NEED therapy when they could have gone their entire life without worry?
That is not, and does not in any way resemble, informed consent. Informed consent is the only possible valid standard. You cannot possibly be capable of declining to know without knowing what you're declining.
Informed consent only occurs before the action.
You cannot have informed consent about something that's already happened to you that you should have been aware of. You can have informed consent on requests to tell you that information relating to the event.
And you can absolutely decline something without knowing what it is. I do it all the time. Phone numbers call me, I hear the brief moment of silence, and then that notorious click of an automatic dialer answering the line. I know immediately it's a scam caller and I'm not interested so I hang up. That is Informed consent that I'm not interested in whatever they're about to say, even though I don't know what specifically they're about to say.
I do the same thing with my some of my family. If my aunt was to call, I'd decline the call outright. I'm not interested in anything she's going to say. That's my right.
Edit: Clarified confusing wording a bit.
Not telling someone they got raped because it's a bummer is exactly like not telling them they have cancer because it's a bummer.
The doctor does not have that option. They are required to make sure that you are fully informed of reality.
Informed consent is mandatory for any health care. "Not telling someone to protect them" is an attempted mental health action that cannot possibly be valid without informed consent, which is impossible.
Not telling the victim, for any reason, makes you complicit in the assault. It is not a valid approach to "health". Denial does not work and is not capable of working. The victim has to know, and cannot possibly have the information required to "choose not to know".
Anyone with knowledge that a person was raped without their knowledge who doesn't take steps to make sure they were informed is a monster who deserves many years in prison.
That's like your opinion man. Good thing you're not my doctor, nor my kids doctor.
Literally already been explained to you. Yes you can. If I don't want to hear information from you, I can choose not to. Just like I will now. Welcome to the block-list! See how easy it is? Now you can choose to try to tell me all you want about your opinions and I won't hear any of them! It's like it's a choice that I can make with all the free-will that I have.
Several people have told you it's possible. Even given you examples of cases where it exists. But you stick your fingers in your ears and scream all you want. I'm not listening anymore.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/ama-code-medical-ethics-opinions-informing-patients/2012-07
American Medical Association says you're full of shit.
That implies they knew.
Not consciously knowing doesn't mean their brain isn't affected.
Not telling them is gaslighting whether they're consciously aware or not.
So you are arguing against consent?
Consent is informed.
Withholding the fact that a person has been raped is exactly the same as a doctor withholding a cancer diagnosis. They do not have that option and cannot have that option. The patient must have the relevant information to be capable of managing their treatment.
"we found out about some bad things that happened to you as a child, do you want us to tell you what we found out?" Is a perfectly valid way to ask for informed consent before doing something to them they may not want.
No, it is not. That is not informed.
Information being shared with the patient is not something that takes their consent. It is the baseline bare minimum obligation of every provider in every circumstance.
A lawyer can't allow a client to decline to hear a plea offer. A doctor can't choose to allow a patient to make any decision without being fully informed of everything the doctor knows relevant to their case. The information is always mandatory, and it's always malpractice not to provide it.
I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about morality.
So am I.
The person being fully informed is the baseline legal requirement all the time because it's literally the only way they can possibly make decisions about their best path forward.
Not informing them isn't just unethical. It's fucking unadulterated evil with no theoretical justification.
Right, so the answer to my earlier question is "yes" in this instance your are anti-choice. Is fine, but own it or we end up going on a big circle to get where we should have been three or four comments ago.
And we could have had a conversation about that, but honestly, I'm just not that invested in the conversation anymore, it's been a long day and I'm out of patience for random strangers who are more interested in being right than communicating.
Being informed is not a choice. Care is the choice.
Being informed is a prerequisite to decide care. There is no other possible way to make a rational decision.
Look around you, being informed is absolutely a choice. This place is a great example of people choosing pleasant fictions over uncomfortable realities every day.
Just because you think it is an unacceptable choice doesn't mean it isn't one.
It's really not a choice, because enough of you knows to be massively harmed. And there are numerous potential physical consequences. But ignoring that, it's not a choice you're entitled to.
Literally any doctor, mental health professional, police officer, or other person in any other position of influence/authority who doesn't give you the information for any reason is an unforgivable monster who belongs in a maximum security prison cell for a minimum of half a decade per offense, with every other person in there knowing that they're there for covering up sex crimes.
Just... Wow.
The true test of being kind is not just empowering others when it makes you feel good, but empowering others when their choice makes you uncomfortable.
Someone absolutely has the right to say "my life has been fucked up enough already, don't tell me, I don't want to know."
The truth is you would take that way from them just so you can feel good about yourself, whether it caused depression, or suicide, or hurt. You would take their choice away because you don't agree with it so you could feel "just" whether it re victimizes them or not.
That right does not exist, because it is literally impossible to have the information required to make it, and it inherently requires someone else to do inexcusable, unforgivable things. You don't have the right to compel someone else to be a monster.
The act causes the hurt. The knowledge of the source of the hurt is the only way it can possibly be addressed.
"Please watch the following 15 hours of video we found on your uncle's laptop of you getting raped when you were 12 so you can understand what level of trauma you should be feeling."
Vs.
"We found out some horrible things that happened to you as a child, do you want to know?"
One of these options is kind and also empowers the victim, can you guess which one?
Neither of those shows the tiniest hint of kindness.
Either makes you a monster.
In my eyes you forcing them to know just so you can sleep at night makes you one. You might as well make them watch footage and really relive it if you are going to deny their right to decide. After, you said they need the information of what happened to them. You just like your arbitrary line of where to stop. All I suggest is giving the victim that choice, and I'm the monster?
They need to know to be capable of living their life.
It is literally impossible to make intelligent decisions about their future health without all the information available. Willful ignorance is not a valid position, and health care professionals aren't permitted to allow you to make decisions without knowing everything you need to know for a reason.
And again, by definition, you cannot be qualified to make the choice until you know what the information you're asking to be withheld is, because that information is required to make a rational decision.
People do have the right not to make intelligent decisions.
Sure, doctors and lawyers have their obligations, but a victim has the right to nope the fuck right out of there to avoid additional mental trauma. It isn't up to you.